Abstract
The annually increasing incidence of endometrial cancer in younger women has created a growing demand for fertility preservation. However, the diverse therapeutic efficacy among patients under the same histological subtype and the same tumor grade suggests the potential interference of the innate molecular characteristics. The molecular classification has now been applied in clinical practice and might help to stratify the endometrial cancer patients and individualize the therapy, but the candidates for the fertility-spared treatment are most likely to be subdivided in the subgroup lacking the specific signature. KRAS mutation has been linked to the malignant transition of the endometrium, while its role in molecular classification and fertility preservation is vague. Here, we mainly review the advance of molecular classification and the role of KRAS in endometrial cancer, as well as their correlation with fertility-preservation treatment.
Introduction
Endometrial cancer (EC) ranks as the second most common malignancy originating from the female reproductive tract, the incidence of which in the population between 20 and 44 years old is increasing globally and accounts for approximately 8.6% of all 417,367 new cases (1). In China, EC is already the most common malignant tumor of the female reproductive tract in developed areas (2), and the proportion of patients with EC diagnosed between 20–44 years old is up to 14.2% (1). The increasing incidence in the younger population thus creates demands of reproductive-aged patients for fertility preservation, while the therapeutic efficacy of conservative treatment varies even in the same histological subtype and the same treatment strategy, suggesting the underlying high molecular heterogeneity of lesions. In 2013, a new molecular classification was proposed and has now been introduced into the clinical-pathological diagnosis in the latest version of NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guideline. Patients suitable for the fertility-spared treatment are most likely subdivided into the molecular subtype of which the specific molecular signatures are still under exploration. The Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) represents the most prevalent oncogene in human cancers, the mutation of which is reported to predict the carcinogenesis as well as the invasive progression of type I EC (3), suggesting that KRAS might be applied as a potential monitoring target for the fertility-preservation treatment of the early stage type I EC. Here we mainly discuss the advance of the molecular classification of EC and the potential link of KRAS mutation to the oncologic outcomes of conservative treatment in early EC patients.
The Conservative Treatment of EC
In 1983, with an understanding of the endocrine and metabolic pathogenesis of EC, Bokham broadly divided EC into two subtypes: the estrogen-dependent (most are histologically diagnosed as endometrioid adenocarcinoma) type I and the estrogen-independent (mainly serous and clear cell carcinoma) type II (
4). In 1997, Kim et al. first reported that 13 of 21 (62%) patients who were treated with progestin alone for type I EC had an initial response to progestins (
5), beginning the exploration of the criteria for the conservative treatment. At present, relevant guidelines for fertility preservation treatment of EC have been launched, including the NCCN
1(
6), the Gynecological Oncology Committee of Chinese Anti-Cancer Association (
7), and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) (
8–
11). The main indications agreed by the above guidelines/expert consensus are as follows:
1) Well-differentiated (grade 1) endometrioid adenocarcinoma confirmed by expert pathology review,
2) Disease limited to the endometrium on imaging,
3) Absence of suspicious or metastatic disease on imaging,
4) No contraindications to medical therapy or pregnancy, and
5) Patients should undergo counseling as the fertility-sparing option is not standard of care for the treatment of endometrial carcinoma.
The main treatment strategy is the use of progestin-based oral drugs [megestrol acetate (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)] or the levonorgestrel (LNG) -intrauterine system/device (IUS/IUD) with or without the hysteroscopic resection of the lesions, accompanied by the evaluation based on the image and the pathological status of the endometrium every 3–6 months. The complete response (CR) is defined as the EC lesions being totally diminished after 6 months of therapy (12) and no response (NR) or failure should be considered when the EC still persists after 6–12 months of therapy and a hysterectomy is recommended.
Although the effectiveness of the fertility-spared treatment has now been widely recognized, the overall CR rate of conservative treatment is reported to fluctuate from 50.0 to 90.0% (13–15). Despite the different use of progestins and hysteroscopy, a center reported that even under the same treatment and histological type, the CR rate was only 40.0% in patients who were diagnosed as grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma with minimal myometrial infiltration (16). These results indicate that the EC cases with similar morphological features show individualized therapeutic efficacy under the same therapy, suggesting that the molecular signature of the tumor might be essential for the implementation and assessment of conservative therapy.
The Molecular Classification of EC
In 2013, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) using an integrated multi-genomic transcriptomic and proteomic platform classified EC into four subgroups (17): the POLE subgroup (7%) had characteristical mutations in the exonuclease domain of POLE with a unique C > A transition, which was mostly composed of high grade endometrioid tumors and exhibited the best progression-free survival (PFS); the CN-H subgroup (26%) was characterized by frequent (over 90%) somatic mutations in TP53 with extensive somatic copy number alterations, comprised of 9% of the endometrioid (56% of grade 3 and 44% of grade 1/2 EC) and almost all of the serous (41/42), and exhibited the poorest outcome; the MSI subgroup (28%) was characterized by MSI and frequent MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and primarily consisted of endometrioid carcinomas, 62% of which were diagnosed as low-grade (grade 1 and grade 2) endometrioid tumors; finally, the CN-L subgroup had the largest proportion (39%) in EC with a relatively stable microsatellite status, more complex molecular characteristics, lower mutation frequency and somatic copy number alterations, and increased progesterone receptor expression. The CN-L subgroup was dominantly enriched for the low-grade endometrioid carcinomas (94%) but showed worse PFS than either the POLE or the MSI subgroup.
The value of molecular classification of EC has been identified by the subsequent studies and is recommended in the newest version of NCCN guidelines and WHO classification. Considering the equipment in most pathology laboratories, the ProMisE strategy proposed using the immunohistochemistry (IHC) of MMR protein as a surrogate to screen the MSI subgroup, as well as the IHC of TP53 to the CN-H subgroup (18–20). The patients under fertility-preservation treatment might also profit from the molecular classification. Since the conventional progesterone receptor and estrogen receptor isoforms showed insufficient predictive accuracy (21), the ProMisE strategy has also been practiced in the population of fertility preservation to identify the MSI status and the potential TP53 abnormality (22–24). POLE mutation could be detected only by sequencing (the next-generation sequencing or Sanger sequencing), considering its superior prognostic value, and it might be of use for young patients with strict fertility-spared conditions.
However, the most troubling problem might be the CN-L subgroup, as the patients entitled to the fertility-spared treatment are mainly (99%) aggregated in the subgroups of POLE, MSI, and CN-L, and nearly 62% of them fall into the CN-L subgroup (17). TCGA data showed that the significantly mutated genes in this subgroup included PTEN, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, ARID1A, CTCF, CTNNB1, and KRAS. Recently, long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been reported to be upregulated or downregulated in ECs compared to normal tissues and their dysregulation has been linked to tumor grade, FIGO stage, the depth of myometrial invasion, lymph node metastasis, and patient survival (25). LncRNA homeobox transcript antisense intergenic RNA (HOTAIR) has been confirmed to bind with lysine-specific demethylase 1 to demethylate the histone 3 lysine 4 on progesterone receptor B promotor, thus inhibiting progesterone receptor B transcription and decreasing progesterone sensitivity (26), and long non-coding RNA nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (LncRNA-NEAT1) promotes EC proliferation and invasion by regulating the miR-144-3p/EZH2 axis (27).
Complex molecular characteristics of the CN-L subgroup might lead to the high differences in response to the fertility-spared treatment. In a recent study performing molecular analysis on 15 fully evaluable EC patients, three of the eight patients in the CN-L subgroup respectively relapsed at the 8th, 11th, and 41st months of conservative treatment (22). Another study showed similar results (24), suggesting the lack of the effective molecular signature of the CN-L subgroup might impair the value of the molecular strategy to stratify the patients under fertility-preservation treatment. All these problems suggest that further molecular stratification to subdivide the patients is urgently needed.
KRAS Mutations in EC and its Potential Value in the Fertility-Spared Treatment
RAS (KRAS, NRAS, and HRAS) is one of the most frequently mutated gene families in cancers, the protein form of which is a kind of membrane-bound GTPase switching to transmit signals within cells (28), controlling processes like cellular growth, cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell adhesion, cell apoptosis, and cell migration. KRAS is the most frequently mutated isoform in the RAS family, which constitutes 86% of RAS mutations (29). KRAS gene is a proto-oncogene that encodes a 21-kDa GTPase transducer protein, which has two states (30, 31): GTP-binding (active) and GDP-binding (inactive). In response to extracellular stimuli, the intracellular cycling between these two states is regulated by the guanine nucleotide exchange/releasing factors (GEFs/GRFs) and the GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) and further influence three major signaling pathways in both normal and transformed cell types, namely the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway, and the Ral-GEFs pathway, to promote cell survival, proliferation, and cytokine secretion (29, 32–34). The binding of GTP causes a conformational change of KRAS protein that involves two important regions (35): Switch Ⅰ (amino acids 30–38) and Switch Ⅱ (amino acids 59–67). The Switch regions Ⅰ and Ⅱ play pivotal roles in the binding of regulators and effectors. KRAS protein has a weak intrinsic GTPase activity [G domain of the KRAS protein (36)], which could be amplified by GAPs and facilitate the return of the GTP-bounding active form to its inactive GDP-bounding form (37–40). In contrast, GEFs/GRFs could catalyze the exchange of GDP for GTP.
Mutations in KRAS could impair the intrinsic GTPase activity of KRAS protein, and the protein becomes unresponsive to GAPs that maintain the KRAS protein in its active form (39, 41). The mutant KRAS protein causes aberrant and uncontrollable cell growth and cell transformation without being affected by upstream molecules in many cancer types. Different mutant KRAS proteins have unique biochemical behaviors in intrinsic/GAPs-stimulated GTPase activities and interactions with effectors (39, 42). Over 80% of KRAS mutations occur at codon 12 (43), including the commonly occurring glycine-to-cysteine mutation (KRAS G12C), the glycine-to-valine mutation (KRAS G12V), and the glycine-to-aspartic acid mutation (KRAS G12D), likely to produce a steric hindrance that prevents binding of GAPs and decreases GAP-stimulated GTPase activity. Different conformations produced by distinct mutant KRAS substitutions can lead to an altered association with downstream effector molecules, resulting in preferential signal transduction and biologic behavior that may impact clinical outcomes and response to therapy (43). In the previous studies (44, 45), KRAS G12C and KRAS G12V have been shown to preferentially signal through the Ral-GEFs pathway with worse PFS than other KRAS mutant or wild-type KRAS, whereas KRAS G12D has been shown to preferentially signal through the MAPK and the PI3K pathways. KRAS mutations drive the tumorigenesis of the three most lethal cancers (lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer) (46). Different mutations of KRAS have shown tissue-specific incidences, such as G12V/C in lung cancer (47, 48) and G12R in pancreatic cancer (49). Novel targeting therapies are currently being pursued as potential treatments for KRAS-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (43, 50) and KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer (51, 52), which might be worthwhile for KRAS-mutant EC in the future.
In EC, the incidence of KRAS mutation is increasing globally (Table 1), which was reported to be approximately 15.0% in the past (37, 61–63). Ahmed et al. (64) found the presence of KRAS mutation in both complex mucinous changes and mucinous adenocarcinoma, indicating that KRAS mutational activation was implicated in the pathogenesis of a significant subset of endometrial mucinous carcinoma. Xiong et al. (65) noticed that the KRAS status in the neoplastic lesion presented on the surface of the endometrium was different from that in the benign metaplastic areas, while Van der Putten et al. (66) found that KRAS mutation appeared both in the hyperplastic lesions and the adjacent benign endometrial tissues. Other studies (46, 62) also supported that KRAS mutation occurred in the early stages of type I EC (endometrioid) before clonal expansion, which is similar to the role of KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer (67, 68). Endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH) is now believed to be the precancerous lesion of EEC, in which KRAS was also a highly mutated gene (63, 64, 69). Contrarily, some studies found no KRAS mutation in endometrial atypical hyperplasia (70, 71), probably due to the small sample size. On the other hand, Tsuda et al. (72) stressed the role of KRAS in predicting invasive proliferation of well-differentiated (grade 1) tumors. Birkeland et al. (73) noticed an increase in KRAS amplification and KRAS mRNA expression during the transition from primary to metastatic disease. All these data suggest that KRAS mutation may be crucial to the proliferation and invasion of EEC, and might be used as a predictive marker to predict a potential malignant transition and progression. It has been reported that KRAS mutation is associated with obesity (73, 74), a high-risk factor for the development of EEC (75), and decreased expression of estrogen receptor (76), suggesting a potential crosstalk between KRAS-mediated signaling pathway and the estrogen receptor activated signaling pathway. Recently, Ahmed et al. (64) demonstrated that KRAS mutation had a positive predictive value of 88% for complex atypical hyperplasia (the precancerous lesion of EEC) or adenocarcinoma. The KRAS mutation testing may be valuable for predicting the therapeutic effect of conservative treatment in EC, and the patients carrying specific mutations of KRAS may profit from the targeted therapy. However, the KRAS status of EC patients with conservative treatment has not been studied yet. Although current molecular classification shows potential predictive value in fertility sparing management, there are still proposed candidates for further risk stratification, such as KRAS (56, 77). If KRAS mutation tracking, combined with other biomarkers, could be completed during the follow-up of conservative treatment of EC patients, it may be possible to further understand the actual significance of KRAS mutation and help determine whether it can be an indicator of prognosis in conservative treatment. However, the KRAS status has not been reported during the follow-up of conservative treatment of EC/EAH patients. It is unclear whether KRAS status will change during follow-up, and how these changes will be associated with the effect of fertility preservation treatment.
TABLE 1
| Studies | n = | Sample | Mutation rate% | Relative mutation distribution (%) by condon | Relative mutation distribution (%) by nucleotide substitution | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codon 12 | Codon 13 | Codon 61 | Other codons | G12D | G12V | G12C | G12A | G13D | Others | ||||
| (53) | 2293 | EC | 427 (18.6%) | 87 (100%) | - | - | - | 29 (33.3%) | 25 (28.7%) | 9 (10.3%) | 8 (9.2%) | 13 (14.9%) | 3 (3.4%) |
| 1242 | EEC | 298 (24.0%) | |||||||||||
| (54) | 464 | EEC | 87 (18.8%) | ||||||||||
| (55) | 385 | EC | 64 (16.6%) | ||||||||||
| 306 | EEC | 54 (17.6%) | |||||||||||
| (56) | 248 | EC | 53 (21.4%) | 29 (70.7%) | 12 (29.3%) | - | - | 15 (36.6%) | 7 (17.1%) | 1 (2.4%) | 5 (12.2%) | 11 (26.8%) | 2 (4.9%) |
| (57) | 199 | EC | 45 (22.6%) | ||||||||||
| (58) | 197 | EC | 41 (20.8%) | ||||||||||
| (59) | 109 | EC | 23 (21.1%) | ||||||||||
| 87 | EEC | 22 (25.3%) | |||||||||||
| (60) | 100 | EC | 23 (23.0%) | ||||||||||
| 82 | EEC | 20 (24.4%) | |||||||||||
KRAS mutation frequencies in different EC/EEC studies.
EEC, endometrioid endometrial cancer; EC, endometrial cancer.
As rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome have risen, rates of EC have also increased, creating demands of reproductive-aged patients for fertility preservation. It may be of clinical significance to use the molecular classification in the fertility-preserving EC/EAH patients to guide individualized treatment and prognostic evaluation in the future. Notably, detecting the KRAS status might help to further stratify the therapeutic response of fertility-preserving EC/EAH patients. Screening such patients with specific KRAS mutations might also help the introduction of the targeted therapy and the improvement of the fertility-sparing efficacy.
Statements
Author contributions
YW had the idea for the article. KXY performed the literature search and drafted the work. YW critically revised the work. The authors contributed equally to this work and both approved the final paper.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
EC, endometrial cancer; EEC, endometrioid endometrial cancer.
References
1.
SungHFerlayJSiegelRLLaversanneMSoerjomataramIJemalAet alGlobal Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA A Cancer J Clin (2021) 71(3):209–49. 10.3322/caac.21660
2.
WangXQSunZJLangJH. Screening for Endometrial Cancer. Chin J Pract Gynecol Obstet (2019) 35:1273–7. 10.19538/j.fk2019110122
3.
SiderisMEminEIAbdullahZHanrahanJStefatouKMSevasVet alThe Role of KRAS in Endometrial Cancer: A Mini-Review. Anticancer Res (2019) 39(2):533–9. 10.21873/anticanres.13145
4.
BokhmanJV. Two Pathogenetic Types of Endometrial Carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol (1983) 15(1):10–7. 10.1016/0090-8258(83)90111-7
5.
KimYBHolschneiderCHGhoshKNiebergRKMontzFJ. Progestin Alone as Primary Treatment of Endometrial Carcinoma in Premenopausal Women. Cancer (1997) 79(2):320–7. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970115)79:2<320:aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-2
6.
Abu-RustumNRYasharCMBradleyKCamposSMChinoJChonHSet alNCCN Guidelines Insights: Uterine Neoplasms, Version 3.2021. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw (2021) 19(8):888–95. 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0038
7.
ZazhiZA. Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometrial Cancer (2021 Edition). China Oncol (2021) 31(06):501–12. 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2021.06.08
8.
ConcinNCreutzbergCLVergoteICibulaDMirzaMRMarnitzSet alESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma. Virchows Arch (2021) 478(2):153–90. 10.1007/s00428-020-03007-z
9.
YamagamiWMikamiMNagaseSTabataTKobayashiYKaneuchiMet alJapan Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2018 Guidelines for Treatment of Uterine Body Neoplasms. J Gynecol Oncol (2020) 31(1). 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e18
10.
ZhouRLuQLiuGLWangYQWangJL. Expert Consensus on Fertility-Sparing Treatment of Early Endometrial Cancer. Gynecol Obstet Clin Med (2019) 20(04):369–73. 10.1016/j.gocm.2020.10.002
11.
LeeS-WLeeTSHongDGNoJHParkDCBaeJMet alPractice Guidelines for Management of Uterine Corpus Cancer in Korea: a Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Consensus Statement. J Gynecol Oncol (2017) 28(1):e12. 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e12
12.
ShenKLangJHYangJXCaoDQWeiLHKongBHet alGuidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Gynecological Malignant Tumors with Preserved Fertility. Chin J Obstet Gynecol (2014) 49(04):243–8.
13.
AndressJPasternakJWalterCKommossSKrämerBHartkopfAet alFertility Preserving Management of Early Endometrial Cancer in a Patient Cohort at the Department of Women's Health at the university of Tuebingen. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2021) 304(1):215–21. 10.1007/s00404-020-05905-8
14.
ParkJ-YKimD-YKimJ-HKimY-MKimK-RKimY-Tet alLong-term Oncologic Outcomes after Fertility-Sparing Management Using Oral Progestin for Young Women with Endometrial Cancer (KGOG 2002). Eur J Cancer (2013) 49(4):868–74. 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.09.017
15.
YangBXuYZhuQXieLShanWNingCet alTreatment Efficiency of Comprehensive Hysteroscopic Evaluation and Lesion Resection Combined with Progestin Therapy in Young Women with Endometrial Atypical Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer. Gynecol Oncol (2019) 153(1):55–62. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.014
16.
CasadioPLa RosaMAllettoAMagnarelliGArenaAFontanaEet alFertility Sparing Treatment of Endometrial Cancer with and without Initial Infiltration of Myometrium: A Single Center Experience. Cancers (2020) 12(12):3571. 10.3390/cancers12123571
17.
LevineDASchultzNCherniackADAkbaniRLiuYShenHet alIntegrated Genomic Characterization of Endometrial Carcinoma. Nature (2013) 497(7447):67–73. 10.1038/nature12113
18.
TalhoukAMcConechyMKLeungSLi-ChangHHKwonJSMelnykNet alA Clinically Applicable Molecular-Based Classification for Endometrial Cancers. Br J Cancer (2015) 113(2):299–310. 10.1038/bjc.2015.190
19.
TalhoukAMcConechyMKLeungSYangWLumASenzJet alConfirmation of ProMisE: A Simple, Genomics-Based Clinical Classifier for Endometrial Cancer. Cancer (2017) 123(5):802–13. 10.1002/cncr.30496
20.
KommossSMcConechyMKKommossFLeungSBunzAMagrillJet alFinal Validation of the ProMisE Molecular Classifier for Endometrial Carcinoma in a Large Population-Based Case Series. Ann Oncol (2018) 29(5):1180–8. 10.1093/annonc/mdy058
21.
TravaglinoARaffoneASacconeGInsabatoLMolloADe PlacidoGet alImmunohistochemical Predictive Markers of Response to Conservative Treatment of Endometrial Hyperplasia and Early Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2019) 98(9):1086–99. 10.1111/aogs.13587
22.
FalconeFNormannoNLositoNSScognamiglioGEsposito AbateRChicchinelliNet alApplication of the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) to Patients Conservatively Treated: Outcomes from an Institutional Series. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2019) 240:220–5. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.013
23.
ChungYSWooHYLeeJ-YParkENamEJKimSet alMismatch Repair Status Influences Response to Fertility-Sparing Treatment of Endometrial Cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol (2021) 224(4):e1–370. 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.003
24.
PuechlAMSpinosaDBerchuckASecordAADruryKEBroadwaterGet alMolecular Classification to Prognosticate Response in Medically Managed Endometrial Cancers and Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Cancers (2021) 13(11):2847. 10.3390/cancers13112847
25.
DongPXiongYYueJHanleyS. J. B.KoboyashiNTodoYet alExploring lncRNA-Mediated Regulatory Networks in Endometrial Cancer Cells and the Tumor Microenvironment: Advances and Challenges. Cancers (2019) 11(2):234. 10.3390/cancers11020234
26.
ChiSLiuYZhouXFengDXiaoXLiWet alKnockdown of Long Non-coding HOTAIR Enhances the Sensitivity to Progesterone in Endometrial Cancer by Epigenetic Regulation of Progesterone Receptor Isoform B. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2019) 83(2):277–87. 10.1007/s00280-018-3727-0
27.
WangWGeLXuX-JYangTYuanYMaX-Let alLncRNA NEAT1 Promotes Endometrial Cancer Cell Proliferation, Migration and Invasion by Regulating the miR-144-3p/EZH2 axis. Radiol Oncol (2019) 53(4):434–42. 10.2478/raon-2019-0051
28.
MalumbresMBarbacidM. RAS Oncogenes: the First 30 Years. Nat Rev Cancer (2003) 3(6):459–65. 10.1038/nrc1097
29.
LiuPWangYLiX. Targeting the Untargetable KRAS in Cancer Therapy. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B (2019) 9(5):871–9. 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.03.002
30.
BoguskiMSMcCormickF. Proteins Regulating Ras and its Relatives. Nature (1993) 366(6456):643–54. 10.1038/366643a0
31.
DonovanSShannonKMBollagG. GTPase Activating Proteins: Critical Regulators of Intracellular Signaling. Biochim Biophys Acta (Bba) - Rev Cancer (2002) 1602(1):23–45. 10.1016/s0304-419x(01)00041-5
32.
SchubbertSShannonKBollagG. Hyperactive Ras in Developmental Disorders and Cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2007) 7(4):295–308. 10.1038/nrc2109
33.
IndiniARijavecEGhidiniMCortelliniAGrossiF. Targeting KRAS in Solid Tumors: Current Challenges and Future Opportunities of Novel KRAS Inhibitors. Pharmaceutics (2021) 13(5):653. 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050653
34.
VetterIRWittinghoferA. The Guanine Nucleotide-Binding Switch in Three Dimensions. Science (2001) 294(5545):1299–304. 10.1126/science.1062023
35.
JančíkSDrábekJRadziochDHajdúchM. Clinical Relevance of KRAS in Human Cancers. J Biomed Biotechnol (2010) 2010:1–13. 10.1155/2010/150960
36.
WittinghoferAVetterIR. Structure-function Relationships of the G Domain, a Canonical Switch Motif. Annu Rev Biochem (2011) 80:943–71. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-062708-134043
37.
Pylayeva-GuptaYGrabockaEBar-SagiD. RAS Oncogenes: Weaving a Tumorigenic Web. Nat Rev Cancer (2011) 11(11):761–74. 10.1038/nrc3106
38.
GideonPJohnJFrechMLautweinAClarkRSchefflerJEet alMutational and Kinetic Analyses of the GTPase-Activating Protein (GAP)-p21 Interaction: the C-Terminal Domain of GAP Is Not Sufficient for Full Activity. Mol Cel Biol (1992) 12(5):2050–6. 10.1128/mcb.12.5.2050-2056.1992
39.
HunterJCManandharACarrascoMAGurbaniDGondiSWestoverKD. Biochemical and Structural Analysis of Common Cancer-Associated KRAS Mutations. Mol Cancer Res (2015) 13(9):1325–35. 10.1158/1541-7786.Mcr-15-0203
40.
BosJLRehmannHWittinghoferA. GEFs and GAPs: Critical Elements in the Control of Small G Proteins. Cell (2007) 129(5):865–77. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.018
41.
SmithMJNeelBGIkuraM. NMR-based Functional Profiling of RASopathies and Oncogenic RAS Mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2013) 110(12):4574–9. 10.1073/pnas.1218173110
42.
CookJHMelloniGEMGulhanDCParkPJHaigisKM. The Origins and Genetic Interactions of KRAS Mutations Are Allele- and Tissue-specific. Nat Commun (2021) 12(1):1808. 10.1038/s41467-021-22125-z
43.
VeluswamyRMackPCHouldsworthJElkhoulyEHirschFR. KRAS G12C-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. J Mol Diagn (2021) 23(5):507–20. 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.02.002
44.
IhleNTByersLAKimESSaintignyPLeeJJBlumenscheinGRet alEffect of KRAS Oncogene Substitutions on Protein Behavior: Implications for Signaling and Clinical Outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) 104(3):228–39. 10.1093/jnci/djr523
45.
YangHLiangS-QSchmidRAPengR-W. New Horizons in KRAS-Mutant Lung Cancer: Dawn after Darkness. Front Oncol (2019) 9:953. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00953
46.
BannoKYanokuraMIidaMMasudaKAokiD. Carcinogenic Mechanisms of Endometrial Cancer: Involvement of Genetics and Epigenetics. J Obstet Gynaecol Res (2014) 40(8):1957–67. 10.1111/jog.12442
47.
HungP-SHuangM-HKuoY-YYangJC-H. The Inhibition of Wnt Restrain KRASG12V-Driven Metastasis in Non-small-cell Lung Cancer. Cancers (2020) 12(4):837. 10.3390/cancers12040837
48.
CanonJRexKSaikiAYMohrCCookeKBagalDet alThe Clinical KRAS(G12C) Inhibitor AMG 510 Drives Anti-tumour Immunity. Nature (2019) 575(7781):217–23. 10.1038/s41586-019-1694-1
49.
HobbsGABakerNMMiermontAMThurmanRDPierobonMTranTHet alAtypical KRASG12R Mutant Is Impaired in PI3K Signaling and Macropinocytosis in Pancreatic Cancer. Cancer Discov (2020) 10(1):104–23. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-1006
50.
ReckMCarboneDPGarassinoMBarlesiF. Targeting KRAS in Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: Recent Progress and New Approaches. Ann Oncol (2021) 32:1101–10. 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.001
51.
MengMZhongKJiangTLiuZKwanHYSuT. The Current Understanding on the Impact of KRAS on Colorectal Cancer. Biomed Pharmacother (2021) 140:111717. 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111717
52.
YarlaNSMadkaVPathuriGRaoCV. Molecular Targets in Precision Chemoprevention of Colorectal Cancer: An Update from Pre-clinical to Clinical Trials. Ijms (2020) 21(24):9609. 10.3390/ijms21249609
53.
JonesNLXiuJChatterjee-PaerSBuckley de MeritensABurkeWMTergasAIet alDistinct Molecular Landscapes between Endometrioid and Nonendometrioid Uterine Carcinomas. Int J Cancer (2017) 140(6):1396–404. 10.1002/ijc.30537
54.
ByronSAGartsideMPowellMAWellensCLGaoFMutchDGet alFGFR2 point Mutations in 466 Endometrioid Endometrial Tumors: Relationship with MSI, KRAS, PIK3CA, CTNNB1 Mutations and Clinicopathological Features. PLoS One (2012) 7(2):e30801. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030801
55.
McConechyMKDingJCheangMCWiegandKCSenzJToneAAet alUse of Mutation Profiles to Refine the Classification of Endometrial Carcinomas. J Pathol (2012) 228(1):20–30. 10.1002/path.4056
56.
LevineDAKandothCSchultzNCherniackADAkbaniRLiuYet alIntegrated Genomic Characterization of Endometrial Carcinoma. Nature (2013) 497(7447):67–73. 10.1038/nature12113
57.
ShintaniDHiharaTOgasawaraASatoSYabunoATaiKet alTumor-related Mutations in Cell-free DNA in Pre-operative Plasma as a Prognostic Indicator of Recurrence in Endometrial Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer (2020) 30(9):1340–6. 10.1136/ijgc-2019-001053
58.
ZauberPDenehyTRTaylorRROngcapinEHMarottaSSabbath-SolitareM. Strong Correlation between Molecular Changes in Endometrial Carcinomas and Concomitant Hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer (2015) 25(5):863–8. 10.1097/igc.0000000000000421
59.
DobrzyckaBTerlikowskiSJMazurekAKowalczukONiklinskaWChyczewskiLet alCirculating Free DNA, P53 Antibody and Mutations of KRAS Gene in Endometrial Cancer. Int J Cancer (2010) 127(3):612–21. 10.1002/ijc.25077
60.
WatanabeTNanamiyaHKojimaMNomuraSFurukawaSSoedaSet alClinical Relevance of Oncogenic Driver Mutations Identified in Endometrial Carcinoma. Translational Oncol (2021) 14(3):101010. 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101010
61.
SinghHLongoDLChabnerBA. Improving Prospects for Targeting RAS. Jco (2015) 33(31):3650–9. 10.1200/jco.2015.62.1052
62.
DugganBDFelixJCMuderspachLITsaoJLShibataDK. Early Mutational Activation of the C-Ki-Ras Oncogene in Endometrial Carcinoma. Cancer Res (1994) 54(6):1604–7.
63.
WangYYuMYangJ-XCaoD-YZhangYZhouH-Met alGenomic Comparison of Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma and its Precancerous Lesions in Chinese Patients by High-Depth Next Generation Sequencing. Front Oncol (2019) 9:123. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00123
64.
AlomariAAbi-RaadRBuzaNHuiP. Frequent KRAS Mutation in Complex Mucinous Epithelial Lesions of the Endometrium. Mod Pathol (2014) 27(5):675–80. 10.1038/modpathol.2013.186
65.
XiongJHeMHansenKJacksonCLBreeseVQuddusMRet alThe Clinical Significance of K-Ras Mutation in Endometrial "surface Epithelial Changes" and Their Associated Endometrial Adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol (2016) 142(1):163–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.001
66.
van der PuttenLJMvan HoofRTopsBBJSnijdersMPLMvan den Berg-van ErpSHvan der WurffAAMet alMolecular Profiles of Benign and (Pre)malignant Endometrial Lesions. Carcinogenesis (2017) 38(3):329–35. 10.1093/carcin/bgx008
67.
SiderisMMoorheadJDiaz-CanoSHajiAPapagrigoriadisS. KRAS Mutant Status May Be Associated with Distant Recurrence in Early-Stage Rectal Cancer. Ar (2017) 37(3):1349–58. 10.21873/anticanres.11454
68.
RyanBMRoblesAIHarrisCC. KRAS-LCS6 Genotype as a Prognostic Marker in Early-Stage CRC-Letter. Clin Cancer Res (2012) 18(12):3487–8. author reply 9. 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-12-0250
69.
ZhengXZZhanYMaJHXuHWZhiWXChenTBet alKRAS Mutations Analysis in Mucinous Epithelial Lesions of the Endometrium. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi (2018) 47(9):687–90. 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5807.2018.09.007
70.
FengY-ZShiozawaTMiyamotoTKashimaHKuraiMSuzukiAet alBRAF Mutation in Endometrial Carcinoma and Hyperplasia: Correlation with KRAS and P53 Mutations and Mismatch Repair Protein Expression. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(17):6133–8. 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-04-2670
71.
D’AngeloEEspinosaICiprianiVSzafranskaJBarbareschiMPratJ. Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia, Low-Grade. Am J Surg Pathol (2021) 45(7):988–96. 10.1097/pas.0000000000001705
72.
TsudaHJikoKYajimaMYamadaTTanemuraKTsunematsuRet alFrequent Occurrence of C-Ki-Ras Gene Mutations in Well Differentiated Endometrial Adenocarcinoma Showing Infiltrative Local Growth with Fibrosing Stromal Response. Int J Gynecol Pathol (1995) 14(3):255–9. 10.1097/00004347-199507000-00010
73.
BirkelandEWikEMjøsSHoivikEATrovikJWernerHMJet alKRAS Gene Amplification and Overexpression but Not Mutation Associates with Aggressive and Metastatic Endometrial Cancer. Br J Cancer (2012) 107(12):1997–2004. 10.1038/bjc.2012.477
74.
BergAHoivikEAMjøsSHolstFWernerHMJTangenILet alMolecular Profiling of Endometrial Carcinoma Precursor, Primary and Metastatic Lesions Suggests Different Targets for Treatment in Obese Compared to Non-obese Patients. Oncotarget (2015) 6(2):1327–39. 10.18632/oncotarget.2675
75.
LuKHBroaddusRR. Endometrial Cancer. N Engl J Med (2020) 383(21):2053–64. 10.1056/NEJMra1514010
76.
RingKLYatesMSSchmandtROnstadMZhangQCelestinoJet alEndometrial Cancers with Activating KRas Mutations Have Activated Estrogen Signaling and Paradoxical Response to MEK Inhibition. Int J Gynecol Cancer (2017) 27(5):854–62. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000960
77.
KnezJAl MahdawiLTakačISobočanM. The Perspectives of Fertility Preservation in Women with Endometrial Cancer. Cancers (2021) 13(4):602. 10.3390/cancers13040602
Summary
Keywords
KRAS mutation, endometrial cancer, fertility-preservation, fertility-spared, conservative treatment, molecular classification
Citation
Yu K and Wang Y (2021) The Advance and Correlation of KRAS Mutation With the Fertility-Preservation Treatment of Endometrial Cancer in the Background of Molecular Classification Application. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 27:1609906. doi: 10.3389/pore.2021.1609906
Received
29 May 2021
Accepted
10 November 2021
Published
16 December 2021
Volume
27 - 2021
Edited by
Anna Sebestyén, Semmelweis University, Hungary
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Yu and Wang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yiqin Wang, yiqinwang11@icloud.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.